Prescriptive
vs. Descriptive Grammar, History of Prescriptive Grammar in English

When
linguists speak of a "grammar" of a language, they are usually talking
about a descriptive grammar, or a set of rules or principles which
account for how people actually speak.When
non-linguists think about "grammar", they often have in mind a prescriptive
grammar, or a list of things that should or should not be said.

The
source of a descriptive grammar is clear--the data comes from a given language
at a given time, and the grammar consists of the rules necessary for deriving
all and only the forms that speakers actually produce.

Where
did these "prescriptions" come from?Who
decides what's "right" and what's "wrong"?How
do they decide?What authority or
expertise do these people have?

Some
languages have an "academy", or governing body.Academies
are notoriously conservative.Members
attempt to "settle" linguistic "problems" such as divided usage and attempt
to regulate loan words.For example,
if there are two ways of saying the same thing, members of the academy
will select one way as "correct", and try to make everyone stop using the
other form.Some academies hate
loan words (words borrowed from other languages)--they see them as a "corruption"
of their tongue.So, academy members
try to come up with equivalent terms in their own language.

English
does not have an academy, yet any English speaker will tell you that we
have our fair share of prescriptive rules.We
have to look back a few hundred years to see where our rules came from.

1650highly
focused public consciousness about language arose

1660Royal
Society proposed that scientific language should be plain, precise, clear,
without emotion or ornamentation.Writers
should be non-assertive.They should
use evidence and reasoning to argue their point (not force).The
goal was to "facilitate a national unity built around scientific honesty
and social utility."However, they
had no authority to enforce these ideas, and could only hope that its members
complied.

First
half of 18th century--the Augustan Age, characterized by a search
for stability in all matters.Correctness
is an ideal.Rules are formulated
which, if followed, lead to correctness.Finally,
reason was the most important consideration in deciding upon the standard.

These
intellectual tendencies were clearly seen in the approach to standardize,
refine, and fix English.

People
first began to consider the grammar of English in this period.It
wasn't fixed to rule (like that of Latin and other 'dead' languages).There
was a large degree of language variation "even among educated speakers"
and this was seen as a bad thing (well, it still is in many circles).There
was a desire to 'ascertain' the language [reduce it to rule, settle disputed
usage questions, and fix it permanently in this 'perfect' form]

18th
century England--Latin was still considered the language of educated people,
but the English empire had become quite powerful, and London was the most
important city in England.This forced
the London dialect into "important world language" status.

In
order to make English "better", people often tried to make English more
like Latin.

At
the same time, upward social mobility suddenly became possible, if one
could master the "best" version of English.Lots
of people came out with handbooks and style manuals to assist people with
this quest for the best.

note:
Shakespeare (1564-1616) wrote before this age of reason.

Dean
Swift--politically and linguistically conservative, one of the first "mavens".He
hated innovations and upheld the classics.He
accepted plain style so long as usage within such a style was acceptable
according to his conservative standards.Hated
clipping, contracting, popular vocabulary (the "cool" words of the day).

Royal
Society, probably influenced by John Dryden, voted for a committee to improve
the English language in 1664.earl
of Roscommon, Horace Walpole, supported the move.

Swift
wrote Proposal for Correcting, Improving, and Ascertaining the English
Tongue for publication in 1710, and addressed to the earl of Oxford
in 1712, and it was published.What
he proposed was essentially an academy like the French one (though he didn't
call it that).

John
Oldmixon wrote a politically motivated attack on Swift's letter, entitled
Reflections on Dr. Swift's Letter to the Earl of Oxford, About the English
Tongue.He attacks Swift personally,
showing examples of poor usage from Swift's own writing, thus proving that
Swift is not qualified to serve in the proposed academy.Oldmixon
also argues against idea of fixing the language, since language change
is inevitable.Olmixon never attacked
the idea of an academy, though.

The
Queen apparently supported Swift, but she died soon after his letter was
published.Many believed that her
death was one of the main reasons why Swift's proposal was never fully
implemented.

After
Swift's failure, others figured it was useless to continue to push for
the academy.Further, opposition
to the idea was building, particularly around the points that it was impossible
for a language to be "fixed" in a particular form (Oldmixon), and that
English speakers felt a sense of personal liberty in the use of their language.
(Samuel Johnson)

In
the absence of an academy, many individuals attempted to right the wrongs
of English and establish a standard.Now
for the first time, an effort was made to engage the general public in
discussion of such matters.

At
this point, English still had no dictionary and no descriptive grammar.

1755--Samuel
Johnson published the first English dictionary.It
was far from ideal by today's standards, but a major achievement at the
time.

Grammarians:

1761--Joseph
Priestly published The Rudiments of English Grammar.

1762--Robert
Lowth published Short Introduction to English Grammar.

1763--John
Ash, Grammatical Institutes

1764--Noah
Webster, A Grammatical Institute of the English Language, Part II, in
America.

These
were the first English grammars not written for foreigners or for the purpose
of teaching Latin.

Grammarians
hoped to codify the principles of language and reduce it to rule, settle
disputed points, and point out common errors.They
essentially tried to make absolute what was common but not universal in
speech of the time (in other words, squelching variation)

How
to decide a point?reason, etymology,
analogy to Latin or Greek

Reason
too often taken to mean analogy or regularization.

Where
two expressions were used interchangeably, grammarians tried to differentiate
between them.

Campbell
votes to ignore etymology if it clearly contradicts with what most people
already say.

Appeal
was not often consciously made to Latin and Greek since people began to
realize that it was not reasonable to do so.

The
idea began to circulate that usage was the most important standard for
considering grammar.That is, what
people say is the best indicator of
what is rightJoseph
Priestly was the strongest advocate of this position in the 18th
century?.some might call him radical even today.George
Campbell also argued this point?"For what is the grammar of any language?It
is no other than a collection of general observations methodically digested?"'correct
is ephemeral'.BUT, Campbell was
inconsistent in his loyalty to usage.

These
early grammarians failed to recognize the importance of usage (except for
those just mentioned), did not understand processes of linguistic change,
and because of these, approached their task in the wrong way--logic is
not the way to determine what is right, and forcing people to use one linguistic
form over another is never successful.

Prescriptive
Rules of English first set out in the latter half of the 18th
century:

lie
intransitive

lay transitive

had
rather, had better condemned

whose as
possessive of which condemned

different
fromrather
than different to or different than

between
you and I
condemned

differentiation
of between and among

use
of comparative when only two things are being compared

incomparables
should not be compared

defense
of from hence

condemnation
of this here and that there

condemnation
of you was in favor of you were

proper
case after than and as?he is older than she; he likes
you better than me

case
before the gerundI don't like
him doing this; ?his doing that.following
Webster, people go with subjective case

condemnation
of double negative--Lowth first stated the rule that two negatives make
a positive (NOT!)

shall vs.
willsimple futurity expressed
by shall in 1p and will in 2p; further refined by Johnson
in his dictionary

1.wordwatchers--create
charming etymoloiges for words and idioms which in most cases cannot be
verified

2.Jeremiahs--alarmists
who pontificate about the serious and disturbing decline of our language

3.entertainers--note
humorous "inconsistencies" in language (e.g. 'hot dogs can be cold') or
ridiculous things that real people supposedly said?.these are often funny,
but not to be taken seriously as things that need remedy.

4.sages--are
the closest we have to enlightened language pundits, take moderate, common-sense
views of usage, yet still rely on "logic", "reason", and possibly "Latin"
as justifications for the continuation of prescriptive norms and consistently
fail to recognize the linguistic system underlying non-standard varieties
of English.(In other words, while
a sage may be correct in identifying a reasonable solution to a usage problem,
s/he arrives there through faulty logic based on incorrect assumptions
about linguistic facts.)

After
this week's reading, you should be able to tell why the following people
are important in the history of prescriptivism in English (in one or two
sentences per person):